Tweet
AS IMPARTIAL MEDIATORS, OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS ARE INSPIRING ARMENIA
news.az
Dec 21 2009
Azerbaijan
Iranian ambassador in Azerbaijan Muhammad Baghir Bahrami said
participation of regional countries in Karabakh settlement would be
more effective than mediation of nonregional states that, he said,
observe their own interests. What can you say about it?
This is an obvious fact that the mediating countries serve their
own interests in mediation. Iran will also serve its own interests
in case of participation. But Bahrami is right when saying that the
responsibility is primarily laid on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If these
countries do not demonstrate enough wisdom and responsibility, any
decisions imposed by other countries will harm the profound interests
of these two nations.
But the co-chairs also say this. Don't their positions coincide with
what the Iranian ambassador said?
Certainly, the co-chairs say the same thing. But at the same time,
they directly affect the process of the conflict. They support one
of the conflict parties, Armenia, both in financial and in military
sense, by supplying it with weapon and economically, politically and
with respect to information. And then they say the parties should
agree themselves. How can one agree with a country that is fully
supported by Europe, the United States and Russia?!
But Iran also maintains close cooperation with Armenia...
Iran is not supporting, Iran is trading. Free assistance with arms
and large financial aid are different from mutually profitable trade.
Can Iran be possibly included into the list of mediators?
The possibility is highly unlikely because this problem is dealt with
by European organization - OSCE, while Iran has nothing to do with
Europe. If an Asian structure is involved into the problem resolution,
Iran will have a chance to become an international mediator.
Don't you think the Karabakh conflict has already had a negative
experience of Iran's mediation when Armenians attacked and invaded
Shusha on the next day after signing the reconciliation agreement?
I remember these events as if they happened yesterday. Aliakbar
Vilayati, the then Iranian foreign minister, met with then president
of Azerbaijan Mutallibov in Baku in February 1992 and obtained his
agreement on mediation, After that he went to Agdam where Russian
servicemen did not allow him to Karabakh. Then he was obliged to
return to Tehran. Later when Mutallibov was overthrown by the Popular
Front, the acting president of Azerbaijan Yagub Mammadov arrived in
Tehran at the invitation of Iranian President Aliakbar Rafsanjani
where he signed a ceasefire agreement with Armenian President
Levon Ter-Petrosyan. As soon as the plane with Ter-Petrosyan on
board directedYerevan, Armenians invaded Shusha at instruction of
the Russian commandment. Mammadov heard the news about Shusha upon
arrival to the Baku airport. He returned to Rafsanjani and expressed
his bewilderment, while the Iranian president said it is not his step,
it is Russia's fault. After some time Russia agreed to return Shusha
in exchange for Mutallibov's return and Azerbaijan's participation
in the military structure that was created in CIS for a single command.
Mutallibov agreed to it which is proven by many evidences. In Beylagan
I saw Russian tanks going to Karabakh - Shusha was to be returned. But
the Popular Front made a coup and this plan was annulled and Shusha
was not returned. Lachin was invaded in several days. This was the
cost of Popular Front's inauguration. We lost two important cities
and thus ended Iran's mediation.
Do you think it possible to reform the co-chairmanship institution
to raise its effectiveness?
This is senseless because the main players in the world are the United
States, Russia and France. What can other countries do in their place?
Who will listen to them? Will they have any opportunity to influence?
This format of the mediators differs with their ability to influence
the process and Armenia and Azerbaijan, though more Armenia, because
Azerbaijan is a financially self-sufficient state and Armenia is fully
financed by these countries (Europe, Russia and the United States).
They can influence Armenia. I do not tell them 'start bombing Yerevan',
but if they stop money transfers, Yerevan will immediately agree on
settlement. Azerbaijan should also intensify its policy. If earlier
chances were given to war, it is now necessary to give a chance to
peace. There are many opportunities for Azerbaijan to put forward
some useful and effective initiatives without harm to its territorial
integrity: to support a part of the Armenian public that is sick and
tired of this mess with Karabakh. But this is not being done.
news.az
Dec 21 2009
Azerbaijan
Iranian ambassador in Azerbaijan Muhammad Baghir Bahrami said
participation of regional countries in Karabakh settlement would be
more effective than mediation of nonregional states that, he said,
observe their own interests. What can you say about it?
This is an obvious fact that the mediating countries serve their
own interests in mediation. Iran will also serve its own interests
in case of participation. But Bahrami is right when saying that the
responsibility is primarily laid on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If these
countries do not demonstrate enough wisdom and responsibility, any
decisions imposed by other countries will harm the profound interests
of these two nations.
But the co-chairs also say this. Don't their positions coincide with
what the Iranian ambassador said?
Certainly, the co-chairs say the same thing. But at the same time,
they directly affect the process of the conflict. They support one
of the conflict parties, Armenia, both in financial and in military
sense, by supplying it with weapon and economically, politically and
with respect to information. And then they say the parties should
agree themselves. How can one agree with a country that is fully
supported by Europe, the United States and Russia?!
But Iran also maintains close cooperation with Armenia...
Iran is not supporting, Iran is trading. Free assistance with arms
and large financial aid are different from mutually profitable trade.
Can Iran be possibly included into the list of mediators?
The possibility is highly unlikely because this problem is dealt with
by European organization - OSCE, while Iran has nothing to do with
Europe. If an Asian structure is involved into the problem resolution,
Iran will have a chance to become an international mediator.
Don't you think the Karabakh conflict has already had a negative
experience of Iran's mediation when Armenians attacked and invaded
Shusha on the next day after signing the reconciliation agreement?
I remember these events as if they happened yesterday. Aliakbar
Vilayati, the then Iranian foreign minister, met with then president
of Azerbaijan Mutallibov in Baku in February 1992 and obtained his
agreement on mediation, After that he went to Agdam where Russian
servicemen did not allow him to Karabakh. Then he was obliged to
return to Tehran. Later when Mutallibov was overthrown by the Popular
Front, the acting president of Azerbaijan Yagub Mammadov arrived in
Tehran at the invitation of Iranian President Aliakbar Rafsanjani
where he signed a ceasefire agreement with Armenian President
Levon Ter-Petrosyan. As soon as the plane with Ter-Petrosyan on
board directedYerevan, Armenians invaded Shusha at instruction of
the Russian commandment. Mammadov heard the news about Shusha upon
arrival to the Baku airport. He returned to Rafsanjani and expressed
his bewilderment, while the Iranian president said it is not his step,
it is Russia's fault. After some time Russia agreed to return Shusha
in exchange for Mutallibov's return and Azerbaijan's participation
in the military structure that was created in CIS for a single command.
Mutallibov agreed to it which is proven by many evidences. In Beylagan
I saw Russian tanks going to Karabakh - Shusha was to be returned. But
the Popular Front made a coup and this plan was annulled and Shusha
was not returned. Lachin was invaded in several days. This was the
cost of Popular Front's inauguration. We lost two important cities
and thus ended Iran's mediation.
Do you think it possible to reform the co-chairmanship institution
to raise its effectiveness?
This is senseless because the main players in the world are the United
States, Russia and France. What can other countries do in their place?
Who will listen to them? Will they have any opportunity to influence?
This format of the mediators differs with their ability to influence
the process and Armenia and Azerbaijan, though more Armenia, because
Azerbaijan is a financially self-sufficient state and Armenia is fully
financed by these countries (Europe, Russia and the United States).
They can influence Armenia. I do not tell them 'start bombing Yerevan',
but if they stop money transfers, Yerevan will immediately agree on
settlement. Azerbaijan should also intensify its policy. If earlier
chances were given to war, it is now necessary to give a chance to
peace. There are many opportunities for Azerbaijan to put forward
some useful and effective initiatives without harm to its territorial
integrity: to support a part of the Armenian public that is sick and
tired of this mess with Karabakh. But this is not being done.